Bob Cleek

There's really no substitute for careful research, and I must admit with chagrin that there's no substitute for carefully double-checking somebody else's research before posting an answer to any question posed, especially when I'm not readily familiar with the vessel in question!  
 
The repeated reference to these two French naval vessels, Turenne and Bayard, as "ironclads" kept niggling at me because it appeared to me that they were built later than the so called "ironclad" period and were of a style similarly advanced beyond the "ironclad" period. So I finally spent a moment to see if I could find anything on line about either of them and, sure enough, there were Wikipedia pages for both vessels and their named "Bayard class." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Turenne ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Bayard )
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad
 
Unlike several of their French predecessors, the Bayard-class ships disposed with iron hulls and reverted to wooden hulls, which were sheathed in copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available. This may have been the result of British reports of hull corrosion with their iron-hulled vessels.
…
The ships were protected with wrought iron armor; their belt was 250 mm (9.8 in) thick amidships, where it protected the ships' propulsion machinery spaces and ammunition magazines. The belt extended for the entire length of the hull, but toward the bow it reduced in thickness to 180 mm (7.1 in), and at the stern, it was reduced to 150 mm (5.9 in). The belt extended from 0.91 m (3 ft) above the waterline to 1.99 m (6 ft 6 in) below.
 
***************************************************************************************************************************************
Note for openers that these wooden-hulled ships "...were sheathed with copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available." We should recognize from the outset then that the converse is also true: they weren't sheathed with copper when not on an extended voyage overseas where shipyard facilities were available. The fact that these French wooden ironclads weren't always copper-sheathed is confirmed by what we know of Atalante, discussed hereafter. Apparently, sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't. If one is modeling a particular such vessel at a particular time in its service life, at least a serious attempt to ascertain whether or not she was copper-sheathed at that time is required. Is there a log, diary, or maintenance report or receipt in a dusty file somewhere? If not, what's the "best estimate" one can make? If depicted when the vessel was on station in French Indochina, there's at least evidence to support your assuming she was not being coppered at that place in time in the absence of contrary evidence. (Just sayin'.  )
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
These vessels carried a ten inch thick wrought iron armor belt which extended 3 feet above the waterline and 6.5 feet below the waterline. Considering the mechanical and galvanic issues attendant to sheathing wrought iron with copper plate, we can conclude that these vessels were only metal-sheathed to protect the wooden hull exposed below the waterline, i.e., from six and a half feet below the waterline on down. There isn't ever going to be any verdigris color at the waterline of any of these wooden vessels with nine and a half foot wide belts of wrought iron around their waterlines.
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntz_metal:
 
(Muntz metal's) original application was as a replacement for copper sheathing on the bottom of boats, as it maintained the anti-fouling abilities of the pure copper at around two thirds of the price. It became the material of choice for this application and Muntz made his fortune. It was found that copper would gradually leach from the alloy in sea water, poisoning any organism that attempted to attach itself to a hull sheathed in the metal.
***************************************************************************************************************************************
 
Muntz metal, was patented in 1832 in England, and England and France were allies at the time of the Bayard class' service. Pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that the "copper sheathing" on these vessels was actually Muntz metal, rather than pure copper. This would result in a "yellow metal" that would be somewhat "yellower" than pure copper.
 
Below: Newly ("virgin") Muntz metal sheathed hull of Cutty Sark following her recent restoration and isolation from the elements in her new partially covered dry dock display building: 
 

By Cmglee - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19898346
 
While metal sheathing provides an effective mechanical barrier to marine borers, it is not as effective at preventing the growth of vegetative fouling which attaches itself to submerged surfaces. Additionally, with the advent of iron-hulled ships which could not be sheathed with copper-based metals due to difficulties with attaching such sheathing and, more significantly, the galvanic dissimilarities between iron and copper which caused severe electrolytic corrosion, a large number of anti-fouling paints and other coatings were developed in the late 19th century and were widely in use by the time of the Bayard class' service. The most successful, and therefore most widely used, of these anti-fouling paints had the now-familiar "bottom paint red" color owing to the copper they contained. Again pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that at least the nine and a half foot wide wrought iron armor plate armor belt at the waterline of the two Bayard class vessels was painted with anti-fouling paint of a color common at the time. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fouling_paint and https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling )
 
A review of related contemporary black and white photographs, colored paintings, colored contemporary postcards, and color photographs of contemporary museum models available online appears to confirm that French iron and wooden warships of the Bayard-class' time, at least to the bottoms of their iron armor belts, were apparently painted with anti-fouling paint and that if they were wooden, were, in some cases when at sea for long periods and away from dry-docking facilities, sheathed in Muntz metal (or possibly zinc plate) which may, or may not have been also painted with anti-fouling coating of a "bottom paint red" (or possibly a light grey color. A copper sulfate anti-fouling coating called "Italian Moravian" was also highly regarded at the time of the Bayard-class. It was reputed to be expensive and difficult to apply. I do not know its color. Here again, more research is required.  Some brief experimentation was also conducted with sheet zinc plating instead of copper or Muntz metal over iron, owing to zinc's greater compatibility with iron on the galvanic scale. Zinc sheet metal would appear as a flat silver-grey ("galvanized") color. Some colored contemporary postcards do clearly show a bottoms of such color. See: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling  
 
For visual data, search Google images: "French Bayard Class ironclads." Some excerpts below. Englarge the photographs to see greater detail:
 
Two photos below: Contemporary hand colored photographs of French ironclads:
 

 

 
Below: Watercolor painting of contemporary iron French naval vessels:

 
Below: From a presumably well-researched modern Eastern European modeling source:
 

 
Below:  Model of Alma-class Jeanne d'Arc on display at the Musee de la Marine in Paris. She was a contemporary of the Bayard-class ships and of identical French ironclad wooden construction as Turenne with a wrought iron armor belt at the waterline. Note armor belt above and below white painted waterline which from other contemporary pictorial documentation appears to be a common feature of French naval livery at that time. Note "Muntz metal" brass-colored metal sheathing below the armor plate and similar "bronze" colored ram edge at the bow. (These bronze rams were not merely a metal covering, but actually an integral structural member of the hull.) Bright sheathing color results from model's "new as built" depiction style. (Alternately identified by other sources as sistership Alma-class ironclad Armide.) (Blue color of possibly dark grey topsides is apparently a photographic lighting artifact.)
 
 
 
Below: Black and white contemporary photograph of similar French ironclad naval vessel showing slightly visible top line of armor belt.
 

 
Below: It appears the white waterline accent line  (AKA: "boot stripe") appears again suggesting it was a regulation livery detail.
 

 
Below: Additional French ironclads of the Bayard-class era from a modern Eastern European modeling source indicating standard French navy livery:
 

 
 
Below: 1860's Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante, sister to Jeanne d'Arc, a contemporary "as built" model of which is pictured above.  This class' service period overlapped the wooden Bayard-class', particularly given that the latter was an intentional nearly identical "throwback" to the Alma-class' wooden ironclad construction details.
 
Atalante is here photographed in the Fitzroy Dock, Sidney Harbor in 1873. She spent a large portion of her service life on the French Indo-China Station. She bombarded Vietnamese forts during the Battle of Thuan in 1884 and participated in the Sino-French Indo-China War of 1884–1885. She was reduced to reserve in Saigon, French Indochina, in 1885 and sank there two years later after having been condemned. 
 
Note top of her armor belt at the level of the heads of the workmen standing on the staging platform with approximately the two top feet of the armor belt painted black as are the topsides (i.e., down to the workers' waists) with anti-fouling bottom paint being applied below that line, resulting in bottom paint beginning approximately a foot or two above the waterline and continuing down to cover the the lower part of the armor belt and the rest of the underwater hull below the staging platform. (Enlarge photo for greater detail.) 
 

 
Below: Contemporary colored drawing of Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante from the glass plate negative above, but depicting the appearance of the hull after the bottom painting was done and she was ready for launching! (Quite a lot to discover from these two views on account of that difference!) Note the "bottom paint red" anti-fouling paint being applied from approximately a couple of feet below the top of the armor belt on downwards to cover the submerged part of the armor belt and on down to include the wooden bottom. Note also the white "bootstripe" accent line at the top of the armor belt and the (subtle) lining above and below the armor belt depicting the wooden planking of the topsides and unsheathed bottom of the wooden hull, contrasted with the smooth wrought plates of the armor belt. As this picture confirms, it appears that the not-inconsiderable expense of metal sheathing of her wooden bottom was deemed unnecessary as she had adequate dry-docking facilities available in her station area. 
 

 
 
 
I didn't reach the same conclusion as you when examining the photos you posted. You'll find a clearer version of your photo of Turenne at her Wikipedia entry: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard-class_ironclad#/media/File:French_ironclad_Turenne_NH_66099.jpg  This photo will enlarge a lot without losing definition. ("Left mouse click once." Love these old glass plate negatives!) For some reason, the French Navy of the period seems to have frequently photographed their ships while they were getting painted. I have no idea why, but it's uncanny when you look at so many of them that have painting details at work. If you enlarge this photo from the Wiki page, and examine the stern quarter, you'll see painters on staging painting the topsides white. If you then examine  the bow area, you'll see that they've just painted the bow area, (including the anchors and chain rodes!) and what you apparently took to be "...what looks like verdigris on copper plating on bows..." and "...a clear patina there on a ship that's made a voyage from Toulon to somewhere in China station." Look again. What you're seeing there is the aftermath of a rather sloppy recent paint job. If you had spent time around shipyards, you'd probably have recognized it for what it was as soon as you saw it. Sailors are notoriously sloppy painters. They're painting to protect the metal first and foremost. They really don't care a whole lot what the job looks like from 100 yards, which is as much as most people will ever see. 
 
As for the second picture, we know that's not "shiny copper" because that's where the wrought iron armor belt is and there's no way they're going to copper-sheath wrought iron armor plate. It certainly was tried unsuccessfully at the time iron ships first came into use, trying to separate the dissimilar metals with felt or wooden furring strips, but that was long before the time of the vessel pictured. I believe what we see in that photo is simply an over-exposure "flash" that could sometimes occur with reflected light off the water and onto the white surfaces given the limitations of the photographic technology of those times. 
 
 

By Unknown, Farenholt collection - history.navy.mil, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142143958
 
I don't think today's younger modelers who began building ship models in the "Internet Age" can begin to appreciate the value of digital research to the hobby. Before the internet, I doubt there was anything more than possibly a book or three, long out of print and near impossible to obtain, written in French, that would have any information whatsoever about these ships. Obtaining the information posted here would have likely required a trip to France and days of searching museum archives, if they'd allow you to do so and, in the days before digital photography, copying a photograph would be a major undertaking and copying a construction drawing would require days of tedious tracing at a drafting table by a skilled draftsman, again if they'd allow you to touch the original. Now, modeling research is often only "a few clicks away!" On the other hand, such a resource has made it all the more important to conduct meticulous research because errors nobody would ever notice before are so much more easily noticed with the so much more accurate information available today. 
 

There's really no substitute for careful research, and I must admit with chagrin that there's no substitute for carefully double-checking somebody else's research before posting an answer to any question posed, especially when I'm not readily familiar with the vessel in question!  
 
The repeated reference to these two French naval vessels, Turenne and Bayard, as "ironclads" kept niggling at me because it appeared to me that they were built later than the so called "ironclad" period and were of a style similarly advanced beyond the "ironclad" period. So I finally spent a moment to see if I could find anything on line about either of them and, sure enough, there were Wikipedia pages for both vessels and their named "Bayard class." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Turenne ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Bayard )
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad
 
Unlike several of their French predecessors, the Bayard-class ships disposed with iron hulls and reverted to wooden hulls, which were sheathed in copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available. This may have been the result of British reports of hull corrosion with their iron-hulled vessels.
…
The ships were protected with wrought iron armor; their belt was 250 mm (9.8 in) thick amidships, where it protected the ships' propulsion machinery spaces and ammunition magazines. The belt extended for the entire length of the hull, but toward the bow it reduced in thickness to 180 mm (7.1 in), and at the stern, it was reduced to 150 mm (5.9 in). The belt extended from 0.91 m (3 ft) above the waterline to 1.99 m (6 ft 6 in) below.
 
***************************************************************************************************************************************
Note for openers that these wooden-hulled ships "...were sheathed with copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available." We should recognize from the outset then that the converse is also true: they weren't sheathed with copper when not on an extended voyage overseas where shipyard facilities were available. The fact that these French wooden ironclads weren't always copper-sheathed is confirmed by what we know of Atalante, discussed hereafter. Apparently, sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't. If one is modeling a particular such vessel at a particular time in its service life, at least a serious attempt to ascertain whether or not she was copper-sheathed at that time is required. Is there a log, diary, or maintenance report or receipt in a dusty file somewhere? If not, what's the "best estimate" one can make? If depicted when the vessel was on station in French Indochina, there's at least evidence to support your assuming she was not being coppered at that place in time in the absence of contrary evidence. (Just sayin'.  )
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
These vessels carried a ten inch thick wrought iron armor belt which extended 3 feet above the waterline and 6.5 feet below the waterline. Considering the mechanical and galvanic issues attendant to sheathing wrought iron with copper plate, we can conclude that these vessels were only metal-sheathed to protect the wooden hull exposed below the waterline, i.e., from six and a half feet below the waterline on down. There isn't ever going to be any verdigris color at the waterline of any of these wooden vessels with nine and a half foot wide belts of wrought iron around their waterlines.
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntz_metal:
 
(Muntz metal's) original application was as a replacement for copper sheathing on the bottom of boats, as it maintained the anti-fouling abilities of the pure copper at around two thirds of the price. It became the material of choice for this application and Muntz made his fortune. It was found that copper would gradually leach from the alloy in sea water, poisoning any organism that attempted to attach itself to a hull sheathed in the metal.
***************************************************************************************************************************************
 
Muntz metal, was patented in 1832 in England, and England and France were allies at the time of the Bayard class' service. Pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that the "copper sheathing" on these vessels was actually Muntz metal, rather than pure copper. This would result in a "yellow metal" that would be somewhat "yellower" than pure copper.
 
Below: Newly ("virgin") Muntz metal sheathed hull of Cutty Sark following her recent restoration and isolation from the elements in her new partially covered dry dock display building: 
 

By Cmglee - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19898346
 
While metal sheathing provides an effective mechanical barrier to marine borers, it is not as effective at preventing the growth of vegetative fouling which attaches itself to submerged surfaces. Additionally, with the advent of iron-hulled ships which could not be sheathed with copper-based metals due to difficulties with attaching such sheathing and, more significantly, the galvanic dissimilarities between iron and copper which caused severe electrolytic corrosion, a large number of anti-fouling paints and other coatings were developed in the late 19th century and were widely in use by the time of the Bayard class' service. The most successful, and therefore most widely used, of these anti-fouling paints had the now-familiar "bottom paint red" color owing to the copper they contained. Again pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that at least the nine and a half foot wide wrought iron armor plate armor belt at the waterline of the two Bayard class vessels was painted with anti-fouling paint of a color common at the time. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fouling_paint and https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling )
 
A review of related contemporary black and white photographs, colored paintings, colored contemporary postcards, and color photographs of contemporary museum models available online appears to confirm that French iron and wooden warships of the Bayard-class' time, at least to the bottoms of their iron armor belts, were apparently painted with anti-fouling paint and that if they were wooden, were, in some cases when at sea for long periods and away from dry-docking facilities, sheathed in Muntz metal (or possibly zinc plate) which may, or may not have been also painted with anti-fouling coating of a "bottom paint red" (or possibly a light grey color. A copper sulfate anti-fouling coating called "Italian Moravian" was also highly regarded at the time of the Bayard-class. It was reputed to be expensive and difficult to apply. I do not know its color. Here again, more research is required.  Some brief experimentation was also conducted with sheet zinc plating instead of copper or Muntz metal over iron, owing to zinc's greater compatibility with iron on the galvanic scale. Zinc sheet metal would appear as a flat silver-grey ("galvanized") color. Some colored contemporary postcards do clearly show a bottoms of such color. See: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling  
 
For visual data, search Google images: "French Bayard Class ironclads." Some excerpts below. Englarge the photographs to see greater detail:
 
Two photos below: Contemporary hand colored photographs of French ironclads:
 

 

 
Below: Watercolor painting of contemporary iron French naval vessels:

 
Below: From a presumably well-researched modern Eastern European modeling source:
 

 
Below:  Model of Alma-class Jeanne d'Arc on display at the Musee de la Marine in Paris. She was a contemporary of the Bayard-class ships and of identical French ironclad wooden construction as Turenne with a wrought iron armor belt at the waterline. Note armor belt above and below white painted waterline which from other contemporary pictorial documentation appears to be a common feature of French naval livery at that time. Note "Muntz metal" brass-colored metal sheathing below the armor plate and similar "bronze" colored ram edge at the bow. (These bronze rams were not merely a metal covering, but actually an integral structural member of the hull.) Bright sheathing color results from model's "new as built" depiction style. (Alternately identified by other sources as sistership Alma-class ironclad Armide.) (Blue color of possibly dark grey topsides is apparently a photographic lighting artifact.)
 
 
 
Below: Black and white contemporary photograph of similar French ironclad naval vessel showing slightly visible top line of armor belt.
 

 
Below: It appears the white waterline accent line  (AKA: "boot stripe") appears again suggesting it was a regulation livery detail.
 

 
Below: Additional French ironclads of the Bayard-class era from a modern Eastern European modeling source indicating standard French navy livery:
 

 
 
Below: 1860's Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante, sister to Jeanne d'Arc, a contemporary "as built" model of which is pictured above.  This class' service period overlapped the wooden Bayard-class', particularly given that the latter was an intentional nearly identical "throwback" to the Alma-class' wooden ironclad construction details.
 
Atalante is here photographed in the Fitzroy Dock, Sidney Harbor in 1873. She spent a large portion of her service life on the French Indo-China Station. She bombarded Vietnamese forts during the Battle of Thuan in 1884 and participated in the Sino-French Indo-China War of 1884–1885. She was reduced to reserve in Saigon, French Indochina, in 1885 and sank there two years later after having been condemned. 
 
Note top of her armor belt at the level of the heads of the workmen standing on the staging platform with approximately the two top feet of the armor belt painted black as are the topsides (i.e., down to the workers' waists) with anti-fouling bottom paint being applied below that line, resulting in bottom paint beginning approximately a foot or two above the waterline and continuing down to cover the the lower part of the armor belt and the rest of the underwater hull below the staging platform. (Enlarge photo for greater detail.) 
 

 
Below: Contemporary colored drawing of Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante from the glass plate negative above, but depicting the appearance of the hull after the bottom painting was done and she was ready for launching! (Quite a lot to discover from these two views on account of that difference!) Note the "bottom paint red" anti-fouling paint being applied from approximately a couple of feet below the top of the armor belt on downwards to cover the submerged part of the armor belt and on down to include the wooden bottom. Note also the white "bootstripe" accent line at the top of the armor belt and the (subtle) lining above and below the armor belt depicting the wooden planking of the topsides and unsheathed bottom of the wooden hull, contrasted with the smooth wrought plates of the armor belt. As this picture confirms, it appears that the not-inconsiderable expense of metal sheathing of her wooden bottom was deemed unnecessary as she had adequate dry-docking facilities available in her station area. 
 

 
 
 
I didn't reach the same conclusion as you when examining the photos you posted. You'll find a clearer version of your photo of Turenne at her Wikipedia entry: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard-class_ironclad#/media/File:French_ironclad_Turenne_NH_66099.jpg  This photo will enlarge a lot without losing definition. ("Left mouse click once." Love these old glass plate negatives!) For some reason, the French Navy of the period seems to have frequently photographed their ships while they were getting painted. I have no idea why, but it's uncanny when you look at so many of them that have painting details at work. If you enlarge this photo from the Wiki page, and examine the stern quarter, you'll see painters on staging painting the topsides white. If you then examine  the bow area, you'll see that they've just painted the bow area, (including the anchors and chain rodes!) and what you apparently took to be "...what looks like verdigris on copper plating on bows..." and "...a clear patina there on a ship that's made a voyage from Toulon to somewhere in China station." Look again. What you're seeing there is the aftermath of a rather sloppy recent paint job. If you had spent time around shipyards, you'd probably have recognized it for what it was as soon as you saw it. Sailors are notoriously sloppy painters. They're painting to protect the metal first and foremost. They really don't care a whole lot what the job looks like from 100 yards, which is as much as most people will ever see. 
 
As for the second picture, we know that's not "shiny copper" because that's where the wrought iron armor belt is and there's no way they're going to copper-sheath wrought iron armor plate. It certainly was tried unsuccessfully at the time iron ships first came into use, trying to separate the dissimilar metals with felt or wooden furring strips, but that was long before the time of the vessel pictured. I believe what we see in that photo is simply an over-exposure "flash" that could sometimes occur with reflected light off the water and onto the white surfaces given the limitations of the photographic technology of those times. 
 
 

By Unknown, Farenholt collection - history.navy.mil, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142143958
 
I don't think today's younger modelers who began building ship models in the "Internet Age" can begin to appreciate the value of digital research to the hobby. Before the internet, I doubt there was anything more than possibly a book or three, long out of print and near impossible to obtain, written in French, that would have any information whatsoever about these ships. Obtaining the information posted here would have likely required a trip to France and days of searching museum archives, if they'd allow you to do so and, in the days before digital photography, copying a photograph would be a major undertaking and copying a construction drawing would require days of tedious tracing at a drafting table by a skilled draftsman, again if they'd allow you to touch the original. Now, modeling research is often only "a few clicks away!" On the other hand, such a resource has made it all the more important to conduct meticulous research because errors nobody would ever notice before are so much more easily noticed with the so much more accurate information available today. 
 

"Thread drift" is an inherent danger is any forum discussion.  It's just as well to head it off at the pass. Back to the subject of hull construction:
 
You are certainly free to build your hull however you wish and, regardless of the construction method you choose, you will have to do some drawing to generate additional transverse body sections, as Wefalck has described so well. That said, I would urge you to carefully study the shape of the classic steam launch hull in which "form follows function." The shape has been developed with speed  and the high-torque low-RPM steam engine's power in mind. (One determining factor being the necessity of the larger diameter higher pitched steam propeller.) Framing and planking the elegant shape of the steam launch's elliptical fan tail counter stern is, in my experience, the most complex and difficult framing and planking job of all stern shapes. Contrasted with the ordinary transom stern where the planks run fairly flat to a relatively vertical sternpost and are "sawed off" at the transom, the fantail launch stern with its long shallow run aft, requires that the planks take a significant twist between the point of maximum beam and the sternpost rabbet, which transitions from relatively vertical at the keel to relatively horizontal at the deck. Therefore, I strongly urge you to seriously consider employing the "lift" or "bread and butter" construction method for such a model hull. The relative difficulties between the alternative construction methods in this instance are at opposite ends of the difficulty spectrum.
 
See: https://www.gartsideboats.com/custom-boatbuilding/22-foot-steam-launch-design-123.html for a sequential photographic demonstration of the construction of a plank on frame steam launch hull. (Plan and photos below from Paul Gartside's website.)
 
 

 

https://www.gartsideboats.com/custom-boatbuilding/22-foot-steam-launch-design-123.html
 

 
 
 
 

It's your model and you are certainly entitled to color it to your own taste, but if it's realism that you are about, there's no "copper sheen" or "shiny brass" look whatsoever to a coppered hull bottom. In real life, it all turns flat "penny brown" in short order as soon as it's exposed to the elements.'

It's your model and you are certainly entitled to color it to your own taste, but if it's realism that you are about, there's no "copper sheen" or "shiny brass" look whatsoever to a coppered hull bottom. In real life, it all turns flat "penny brown" in short order as soon as it's exposed to the elements.'

I believe that the notice on the Byrnes website indicates that while they aren't presently shipping machines, they are accepting orders on accessories. If you haven't tried them, you might check and see if that is still so. 
 
There has been a lot of discussion regarding alternate blade sources for the Byrnes table saw. You might want to check all the posts using the  forum search engine parameters "Byrnes saw" to find all the posts addressing the subject. Here's links to a couple I copied for you: 
 
This general information sheet may be helpful if you haven't seen it already: ByrnesTableSawTips.pdf (thenrg.org)

Donna is filling orders for accessories.  I have completed two successful transactions last month.
I bought replicates of the disposable or easily misplaced parts for my collection of Byrnes machines - in case she does go dark.
I bought a      22015                    DIABLO 4 3/8 X 36 ATB TRIM SAW FINISH  BLADE  D0436X                 1         $14.99     from Peachtree  even though I dislike the kerf it takes.
I bought the requisite bushing adapters that Jim made a couple of weeks ago.
 
I think it is has pretty much devolved to Malco for a producer of 3" and 4" blades for thin stock.  The part of their inventory that Model Machines provides is at a reasonable cost and as been filtered to meet our needs.  
If you do not have a few of the arbor bushing adapters for blades with 1" arbors already,  it would be wise to obtain them.
 
Thurston did not survive a generation change.    
Martindale used to be a source, but although I see blades in their site, there is no indication of any of them being in inventory.  I suspect that they are produced on demand - probably for more than we find reasonable.
I keep forgetting the name "Martindale"   so a search on line brought up MSC - a vendor - the the prices!!!!!

I believe that the notice on the Byrnes website indicates that while they aren't presently shipping machines, they are accepting orders on accessories. If you haven't tried them, you might check and see if that is still so. 
 
There has been a lot of discussion regarding alternate blade sources for the Byrnes table saw. You might want to check all the posts using the  forum search engine parameters "Byrnes saw" to find all the posts addressing the subject. Here's links to a couple I copied for you: 
 
This general information sheet may be helpful if you haven't seen it already: ByrnesTableSawTips.pdf (thenrg.org)

I think Bob above with his reasoning is right. I would expect the copper to be a dullish penny-brown below the water line, some verdigris (i.e. copper sulphate-oxide) around the waterline and again some more penny-brown higher up, depending on how much above the waterline the coppering goes. Incidentally, the bronze ram and stern-post should retain a more yellowish colour, perhaps with a hint of brownish green - the tin in the bronze doesn't really form sulfates in seawater conditions.

Thank you for the info and photos @Bob Cleek.  My original plan wasn’t to paint the deck, but I may have to consider that now. If I don’t, it seems like creating a wash a mixture of gray and brown paint to darken the wood sounds like the way to go.  I will definitely be testing it out on scrap wood first. 

If they aren't painted (most are painted,) the bare wooden deck of a working fishing boat will usually be covered with old fish oil and dirt, they end up very dark, being closer to black more than anything else. In any event, most have their decks painted over, rather than unfinished. The below photos give you some idea of what a working fishing boat's wooden decks really look like.
 
You should experiment with scrap pieces of the same species of wood before attempting anything on the model itself. I'd try mixing a bit of brown and grey oil paint and apply it in varying coats until you can devise a recipe that works best for you. Check out the YouTube posts on the weathering techniques. The model railroad hobbyists do a lot of this kind of weathering.
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Members who do not know Charlie Cozewith as he hasn't posted on MSW much, should know that he is a long time NRG member and I will personally vouch for him being trustworthy and you should not have reservations about dealing with him.

During many years of model building I have built many more models in my head than on the workbench.  A result of one of my mental exercises:
 
It seems to me that coppering a hull with real copper is a weak link in the modeling process.  Gluing copper over a wood substrate is problematic as both  Rubber cements and pressure sensitive adhesives have doubtful longevity.  Nothing is more discouraging for corners of plates on a tediously coppered hull to begin lifting up.  Then as Bob Cleek points out there is the scale factor.  If you are building at a scale of 1:100 scale thickness of the copper could be .001in or less thick.
 
I would suggest that you instead use plates cut from thin paper.  These can be glued on with any good wood glue including PVA.  You can paint the plated hull as needed.  An airbrush would work well for simulating different weathering effects.
 
Roger

If they aren't painted (most are painted,) the bare wooden deck of a working fishing boat will usually be covered with old fish oil and dirt, they end up very dark, being closer to black more than anything else. In any event, most have their decks painted over, rather than unfinished. The below photos give you some idea of what a working fishing boat's wooden decks really look like.
 
You should experiment with scrap pieces of the same species of wood before attempting anything on the model itself. I'd try mixing a bit of brown and grey oil paint and apply it in varying coats until you can devise a recipe that works best for you. Check out the YouTube posts on the weathering techniques. The model railroad hobbyists do a lot of this kind of weathering.
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

If you are asking what a ship with a copper-sheathed hull looks like, the answer has to be, "It depends." In the water? Out of the water? Fouled or clean? These pictures and explanations below should help. When building a model, one has to consider what is known as the "scale viewing distance." There are details one knows are present but including them may run the risk of adding over-scale details. Coppered bottoms frequently occasion this flaw and, regrettably, it seems to be exacerbated by some model kit manufacturers who feel compelled to advertise that their kits contain "real detailed copper plates" that they expect the builder to tediously apply one at a time. The "scale viewing distance" is simply "what you would see if you were viewing the real ship from the same real distance as you are looking at the model in scale distance. For example, if you are looking at a 1:48 scale (1/4"=1") model from three feet away, you should only see the details you would be able to see on the real ship if you were standing 144 feet away from it. If you are not so completely familiar with what ships look like from a distance, photographs are an excellent way to judge what a scale viewing distance actually looks like. The same phenomenon applies to the colors one sees and these are affected as well by the ambient lighting. At a distance, colors will be flat and somewhat darker. A model with intense glossy paint and over-scale detail will appear like a toy, and defeat the "compelling impression of reality in miniature" that a good model is about. (Unless, of course, it's a toy boat one intends to produce.) From most scale viewing distances, a model should have no glossy finishes and no shiny metal parts. (Unless, of course, one is building a particular style of "builder's model" that at one time was fashionable. These would often be unpainted, relying on the different appearances of contrasting wood species and bright brass metal fittings.) Certainly, at 1:96 scale (1/8"=1'), the scale of many kit sailing models these days, from a normal three-foot model viewing distance, a "scale viewing distance of 288 feet, almost the length of a football field, copper-plating details such as tacks, and even plate overlaps, are not going to be visible. Only subtle variations in color will be perceptible. When seeking to realistically portray a copper-sheathed hull, trust the camera's eye rather than your mind's eye and avoid "overstating the obvious." Our "mind's eye" provides the details in such instances, causing a viewer to "see" things that aren't there, or merely very subtly suggested. As counterintuitive as it may be, in this fashion, it's what's not there that makes a model look "real." 
 
 

 

 
Above are photos of the usual appearance of a copper sheathed hull. If anything, the oxidized copper above the waterline in the top picture is a bit too "reddish" and would be a bit "browner." I can't say whether this is simply an artifact of the computer screen I'm looking at, or a digital camera color intensity setting, or perhaps the variables of the exact copper used. The more common color in this respect is the color of a used copper coin, such as a US penny. The turquoise green color at the waterline in the photos is often referred to as "verdigris."  Best described, these two colors are called "verdigris" and "copper penny." They can be somewhat mottled and vary in shade or intensity a bit in real life.
 

 
The verdigris green color, which is copper sulfate, occurs when copper oxidizes in the presence of a sufficient amount sulfur in the surrounding environment. Copper oxidizes rather quickly upon exposure to the air. Where there is a high level of sulfur in the air, such as in the days when sulphureous coal was burned, copper exposed to the air will quickly produce verdigris colored copper sulfate on its surface, such as is seen on bronze statues, copper roofing materials, and, famously, the Statue of Liberty. Absent a sufficient level of sulfur, the copper will form a "copper penny brown" colored oxide coating that serves as a shield that prevents further oxidation and the creation of verdigris green copper sulfate. There are sufficient sulfates in seawater to support the formation of verdigris green copper sulfate where sufficient oxygen is also present. When the friction of water movement wears away the brown copper oxide, notably at the "splash zone" above the waterline where there is also sufficient oxygen, copper bottom sheathing will develop green copper sulfate on its surface but will not tend to do so where the seawater is not as regularly in contact with the copper sheathing well above the waterline. (This is my own causation theory. It's at least accurate as to what happens, but perhaps not exactly correct as to why it happens. If one of the resident metallurgists on this forum has a better explanation, I welcome their correction! ) In any event, the color of a copper sheathed hull bottom is "copper penny brown" with a "verdigris" band around the waterline as pictured in the first two photos above (or more accurately, perhaps, between the top of the copper sheathing and the waterline.)
 
That said, if a coppered bottom is hauled out for cleaning, and particularly if it is well scrubbed upon hauling, a verdigris-colored patina will very quickly develop. Below is a coppered hull that has been apparently dry-docked and her copper has quickly produced a copper sulfate verdigris colored patina, in this case, for whatever reason, a somewhat less intense and more pale shade. This is a very clean bottom which has been brushed, power washed, or the like, removing some of the usual "penny brown" copper oxidation along with the usual fouling growth, and washed down with salt seawater. it is customary to scrub a bottom down immediately upon it's leaving the water (or the water leaving the dock, as the case may be) while the marine growth on the bottom is more easily removed. Once a fouled bottom dries, scraping clean it becomes a much more difficult job. For this reason, if a model of a ship having a coppered bottom is depicted out of the water, coloring it as is seen in the picture below would be correct. 
 

 
 
Below the waterline, before a hull is scrubbed clean of fouling growth, it will appear in a variety of ways, depending upon the length of time the hull has been submerged, the growing environment of the area where the hull was located, and the types of flora and fauna that are prevalent in the area. Basically, the color of marine fouling is a mottled, dirty dark green and/or dark brown.
 
When a hull is first hauled or dry-docked after having been in the water for any significant length of time, it can appear as the hull pictured below "in the slings" and just hauling out.  Obviously, this is something of an extreme example, but not unheard of in areas where the environment favors the growth of particular flora and fauna, particularly in the warm tropics.  A hull that has been regularly sailing will generally accumulate less fouling material than one that sits still for periods of time. 
 
 

 
Below is the appearance of a fouled hull which appears somewhat dry.
 

 
 
Below is a barge hull with significant barnacle fouling.
 

 
Photo below of modern sailboat hull with average fouling. 
 

 
In my experience, portraying a coppered bottom on a model is an opportunity for restrained creative "weathering" and airbrush work.
 
 
 

If you are asking what a ship with a copper-sheathed hull looks like, the answer has to be, "It depends." In the water? Out of the water? Fouled or clean? These pictures and explanations below should help. When building a model, one has to consider what is known as the "scale viewing distance." There are details one knows are present but including them may run the risk of adding over-scale details. Coppered bottoms frequently occasion this flaw and, regrettably, it seems to be exacerbated by some model kit manufacturers who feel compelled to advertise that their kits contain "real detailed copper plates" that they expect the builder to tediously apply one at a time. The "scale viewing distance" is simply "what you would see if you were viewing the real ship from the same real distance as you are looking at the model in scale distance. For example, if you are looking at a 1:48 scale (1/4"=1") model from three feet away, you should only see the details you would be able to see on the real ship if you were standing 144 feet away from it. If you are not so completely familiar with what ships look like from a distance, photographs are an excellent way to judge what a scale viewing distance actually looks like. The same phenomenon applies to the colors one sees and these are affected as well by the ambient lighting. At a distance, colors will be flat and somewhat darker. A model with intense glossy paint and over-scale detail will appear like a toy, and defeat the "compelling impression of reality in miniature" that a good model is about. (Unless, of course, it's a toy boat one intends to produce.) From most scale viewing distances, a model should have no glossy finishes and no shiny metal parts. (Unless, of course, one is building a particular style of "builder's model" that at one time was fashionable. These would often be unpainted, relying on the different appearances of contrasting wood species and bright brass metal fittings.) Certainly, at 1:96 scale (1/8"=1'), the scale of many kit sailing models these days, from a normal three-foot model viewing distance, a "scale viewing distance of 288 feet, almost the length of a football field, copper-plating details such as tacks, and even plate overlaps, are not going to be visible. Only subtle variations in color will be perceptible. When seeking to realistically portray a copper-sheathed hull, trust the camera's eye rather than your mind's eye and avoid "overstating the obvious." Our "mind's eye" provides the details in such instances, causing a viewer to "see" things that aren't there, or merely very subtly suggested. As counterintuitive as it may be, in this fashion, it's what's not there that makes a model look "real." 
 
 

 

 
Above are photos of the usual appearance of a copper sheathed hull. If anything, the oxidized copper above the waterline in the top picture is a bit too "reddish" and would be a bit "browner." I can't say whether this is simply an artifact of the computer screen I'm looking at, or a digital camera color intensity setting, or perhaps the variables of the exact copper used. The more common color in this respect is the color of a used copper coin, such as a US penny. The turquoise green color at the waterline in the photos is often referred to as "verdigris."  Best described, these two colors are called "verdigris" and "copper penny." They can be somewhat mottled and vary in shade or intensity a bit in real life.
 

 
The verdigris green color, which is copper sulfate, occurs when copper oxidizes in the presence of a sufficient amount sulfur in the surrounding environment. Copper oxidizes rather quickly upon exposure to the air. Where there is a high level of sulfur in the air, such as in the days when sulphureous coal was burned, copper exposed to the air will quickly produce verdigris colored copper sulfate on its surface, such as is seen on bronze statues, copper roofing materials, and, famously, the Statue of Liberty. Absent a sufficient level of sulfur, the copper will form a "copper penny brown" colored oxide coating that serves as a shield that prevents further oxidation and the creation of verdigris green copper sulfate. There are sufficient sulfates in seawater to support the formation of verdigris green copper sulfate where sufficient oxygen is also present. When the friction of water movement wears away the brown copper oxide, notably at the "splash zone" above the waterline where there is also sufficient oxygen, copper bottom sheathing will develop green copper sulfate on its surface but will not tend to do so where the seawater is not as regularly in contact with the copper sheathing well above the waterline. (This is my own causation theory. It's at least accurate as to what happens, but perhaps not exactly correct as to why it happens. If one of the resident metallurgists on this forum has a better explanation, I welcome their correction! ) In any event, the color of a copper sheathed hull bottom is "copper penny brown" with a "verdigris" band around the waterline as pictured in the first two photos above (or more accurately, perhaps, between the top of the copper sheathing and the waterline.)
 
That said, if a coppered bottom is hauled out for cleaning, and particularly if it is well scrubbed upon hauling, a verdigris-colored patina will very quickly develop. Below is a coppered hull that has been apparently dry-docked and her copper has quickly produced a copper sulfate verdigris colored patina, in this case, for whatever reason, a somewhat less intense and more pale shade. This is a very clean bottom which has been brushed, power washed, or the like, removing some of the usual "penny brown" copper oxidation along with the usual fouling growth, and washed down with salt seawater. it is customary to scrub a bottom down immediately upon it's leaving the water (or the water leaving the dock, as the case may be) while the marine growth on the bottom is more easily removed. Once a fouled bottom dries, scraping clean it becomes a much more difficult job. For this reason, if a model of a ship having a coppered bottom is depicted out of the water, coloring it as is seen in the picture below would be correct. 
 

 
 
Below the waterline, before a hull is scrubbed clean of fouling growth, it will appear in a variety of ways, depending upon the length of time the hull has been submerged, the growing environment of the area where the hull was located, and the types of flora and fauna that are prevalent in the area. Basically, the color of marine fouling is a mottled, dirty dark green and/or dark brown.
 
When a hull is first hauled or dry-docked after having been in the water for any significant length of time, it can appear as the hull pictured below "in the slings" and just hauling out.  Obviously, this is something of an extreme example, but not unheard of in areas where the environment favors the growth of particular flora and fauna, particularly in the warm tropics.  A hull that has been regularly sailing will generally accumulate less fouling material than one that sits still for periods of time. 
 
 

 
Below is the appearance of a fouled hull which appears somewhat dry.
 

 
 
Below is a barge hull with significant barnacle fouling.
 

 
Photo below of modern sailboat hull with average fouling. 
 

 
In my experience, portraying a coppered bottom on a model is an opportunity for restrained creative "weathering" and airbrush work.
 
 
 

If you are asking what a ship with a copper-sheathed hull looks like, the answer has to be, "It depends." In the water? Out of the water? Fouled or clean? These pictures and explanations below should help. When building a model, one has to consider what is known as the "scale viewing distance." There are details one knows are present but including them may run the risk of adding over-scale details. Coppered bottoms frequently occasion this flaw and, regrettably, it seems to be exacerbated by some model kit manufacturers who feel compelled to advertise that their kits contain "real detailed copper plates" that they expect the builder to tediously apply one at a time. The "scale viewing distance" is simply "what you would see if you were viewing the real ship from the same real distance as you are looking at the model in scale distance. For example, if you are looking at a 1:48 scale (1/4"=1") model from three feet away, you should only see the details you would be able to see on the real ship if you were standing 144 feet away from it. If you are not so completely familiar with what ships look like from a distance, photographs are an excellent way to judge what a scale viewing distance actually looks like. The same phenomenon applies to the colors one sees and these are affected as well by the ambient lighting. At a distance, colors will be flat and somewhat darker. A model with intense glossy paint and over-scale detail will appear like a toy, and defeat the "compelling impression of reality in miniature" that a good model is about. (Unless, of course, it's a toy boat one intends to produce.) From most scale viewing distances, a model should have no glossy finishes and no shiny metal parts. (Unless, of course, one is building a particular style of "builder's model" that at one time was fashionable. These would often be unpainted, relying on the different appearances of contrasting wood species and bright brass metal fittings.) Certainly, at 1:96 scale (1/8"=1'), the scale of many kit sailing models these days, from a normal three-foot model viewing distance, a "scale viewing distance of 288 feet, almost the length of a football field, copper-plating details such as tacks, and even plate overlaps, are not going to be visible. Only subtle variations in color will be perceptible. When seeking to realistically portray a copper-sheathed hull, trust the camera's eye rather than your mind's eye and avoid "overstating the obvious." Our "mind's eye" provides the details in such instances, causing a viewer to "see" things that aren't there, or merely very subtly suggested. As counterintuitive as it may be, in this fashion, it's what's not there that makes a model look "real." 
 
 

 

 
Above are photos of the usual appearance of a copper sheathed hull. If anything, the oxidized copper above the waterline in the top picture is a bit too "reddish" and would be a bit "browner." I can't say whether this is simply an artifact of the computer screen I'm looking at, or a digital camera color intensity setting, or perhaps the variables of the exact copper used. The more common color in this respect is the color of a used copper coin, such as a US penny. The turquoise green color at the waterline in the photos is often referred to as "verdigris."  Best described, these two colors are called "verdigris" and "copper penny." They can be somewhat mottled and vary in shade or intensity a bit in real life.
 

 
The verdigris green color, which is copper sulfate, occurs when copper oxidizes in the presence of a sufficient amount sulfur in the surrounding environment. Copper oxidizes rather quickly upon exposure to the air. Where there is a high level of sulfur in the air, such as in the days when sulphureous coal was burned, copper exposed to the air will quickly produce verdigris colored copper sulfate on its surface, such as is seen on bronze statues, copper roofing materials, and, famously, the Statue of Liberty. Absent a sufficient level of sulfur, the copper will form a "copper penny brown" colored oxide coating that serves as a shield that prevents further oxidation and the creation of verdigris green copper sulfate. There are sufficient sulfates in seawater to support the formation of verdigris green copper sulfate where sufficient oxygen is also present. When the friction of water movement wears away the brown copper oxide, notably at the "splash zone" above the waterline where there is also sufficient oxygen, copper bottom sheathing will develop green copper sulfate on its surface but will not tend to do so where the seawater is not as regularly in contact with the copper sheathing well above the waterline. (This is my own causation theory. It's at least accurate as to what happens, but perhaps not exactly correct as to why it happens. If one of the resident metallurgists on this forum has a better explanation, I welcome their correction! ) In any event, the color of a copper sheathed hull bottom is "copper penny brown" with a "verdigris" band around the waterline as pictured in the first two photos above (or more accurately, perhaps, between the top of the copper sheathing and the waterline.)
 
That said, if a coppered bottom is hauled out for cleaning, and particularly if it is well scrubbed upon hauling, a verdigris-colored patina will very quickly develop. Below is a coppered hull that has been apparently dry-docked and her copper has quickly produced a copper sulfate verdigris colored patina, in this case, for whatever reason, a somewhat less intense and more pale shade. This is a very clean bottom which has been brushed, power washed, or the like, removing some of the usual "penny brown" copper oxidation along with the usual fouling growth, and washed down with salt seawater. it is customary to scrub a bottom down immediately upon it's leaving the water (or the water leaving the dock, as the case may be) while the marine growth on the bottom is more easily removed. Once a fouled bottom dries, scraping clean it becomes a much more difficult job. For this reason, if a model of a ship having a coppered bottom is depicted out of the water, coloring it as is seen in the picture below would be correct. 
 

 
 
Below the waterline, before a hull is scrubbed clean of fouling growth, it will appear in a variety of ways, depending upon the length of time the hull has been submerged, the growing environment of the area where the hull was located, and the types of flora and fauna that are prevalent in the area. Basically, the color of marine fouling is a mottled, dirty dark green and/or dark brown.
 
When a hull is first hauled or dry-docked after having been in the water for any significant length of time, it can appear as the hull pictured below "in the slings" and just hauling out.  Obviously, this is something of an extreme example, but not unheard of in areas where the environment favors the growth of particular flora and fauna, particularly in the warm tropics.  A hull that has been regularly sailing will generally accumulate less fouling material than one that sits still for periods of time. 
 
 

 
Below is the appearance of a fouled hull which appears somewhat dry.
 

 
 
Below is a barge hull with significant barnacle fouling.
 

 
Photo below of modern sailboat hull with average fouling. 
 

 
In my experience, portraying a coppered bottom on a model is an opportunity for restrained creative "weathering" and airbrush work.
 
 
 

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel mototool drill press stand also. I agree, it's far better than the version made by Dremel and the best option out there short of a dedicated benchtop drill press or mill. I have a dedicated new-style Dremel tool mounted in it and haven't noticed any mounting problems. I believe Vanda-Lay may offer different mounting collars for the old-style and new-style Dremel mototools. I gave them a call some time back to ask if they had a mounting collar that would fit a one-inch Foredom handpiece and they said that indeed they did and could provide one on special order. I've never gotten around to ordering one since I have another small combination drill press and milling machine. I'm presently musing about buying the additional parts and turning my Vanda-Lay drill press stand into the full-blown Vanda-Lay combo drill press and X-Y-Z milling machine to use with my Foredom flex shaft machine. I'm curious about the rigidity and accuracy of their new mill/drill and I expect its milling ability is somewhat limited by the power source options. If anybody has one, I'd like to know their thoughts.
 
The entire Vanda-Lay line, which keeps growing, seems extremely clever and reasonably priced. The fit and finish of the entire system, which is entirely CNC-machined aluminum and stainless steel (I think the support post rods are, as I recall.) is perfectly executed. Their system keeps growing. After expanding their milling stand to include a Z-axis, they now have accessories that turn it into a wood turning lathe, a grinding stand, a table router, circular cut-off saw, and grinding and buffing mandrel. Over the years I've acquired more dedicated small power tools than I have time to use and hardly need any of the Vanda-Lay system products because I already have dedicated machines to do all this combination system does, but I still want one because they are just so darn neat.  I would say that, regrettably, their main limitation is their dependence upon the Dremel mototool as a primary power source. The option of using the Foredom flex-shaft instead would, I anticipate, be a great improvement. Beyond that, if Vanda-Lay can ever develop their own foot-controlled variable-speed and reversible higher-powered and more compact and balanced power source, they'd be on their way to having an excellent candidate for the model engineering power tool niche once occupied by the venerable Unimat system which has been vacant for decades now.

Yes. As explained in the old post below, the signals lockers are on the signals bridge and the lockers, port and starboard, will always be found on any ship by following the signal halyards down from the signals mast to the deck.
 
 

Many, many years ago a dentist gave me a handful of steel dentist burrs.  They have sat in a 35mm film can ever since.  These have a 3/32” shaft with a “snout” tapering to a ball shaped cutting head.
 
 I recently found it necessary to drill a series #75 of holes through a piece of 1/16” diameter brass tubing.  I first filed a narrow flat along the top of the tube.  I have been unable to find a center punch with a really tiny point so ground one on the end of a piece of piano wire but actually using it fell short.
 
I then dug out my dentist burrs and found a really tiny one.  Chucked in my sensitive drilling attachment this did a great job in a accurately grinding a tiny depression at each location.  The job was then easily finished with a conventional HSS twist drill.
 
Roger

I think a lever as such is not the problem when using sub-millimetre drills, but rather the position of the arm when using the lever. You have to be able to rest the arm on the table as much as possible, perhaps working only from the wrist in order to reduce the number of degrees of freedom you have to control.
 
In the watchmaking etc. industries they have used such drill-presses for something like 150 years now:

The preferred brand of Jacobs-chuck there is 'Albrecht', but they are ridicously expensive (we talk about several hundred €/US$/£ when new). The above machine used horological collets, but a less expensive option is to use ER7 or ER11 collets for which arbors are available to screw on in place of a drill-chuck.
 
There HSS sub-millimeter drill-bits on the market that have 1 mm shafts. Their spiral is in order of 5x the diametre long, so they are relatively stiff and do not wander. I use a carbide scriber as centre punch to locate holes.
 
I have not had a chance to closely inspect any of these small drill-presses that sparked off this thread, but think they could be a useful tool, perhaps with some upgrading to ensure no play in the mechanical parts.
 

My current modeling project has recently required me to drill 100’s of small holes (.010”- .025”) in brass.  I am fortunate to own a well equipped Sherline lathe and milling column.  My Sherline tool kit includes a sensitive drilling attachment. Using this fitted with a sharp HSS drill bit, I can drill holes in brass like it’s butter.
 
Structurally, drill bits are columns. These small drill bits are very slender columns.  When subjected to axial loads, columns fail by buckling.  If the load is not truly axial, (the load does not pass down the longitudinal center of the column) even less load is required for the column to fail.
 
So, how does this theory effect us?  First, any force in excess of that actually required for the drill to cut can cause the bit to buckle and fail.  Second, anything that results in an eccentric load will dramatically reduce the drilling force leading to failure.  This latter could either be caused by the center punch not being correctly lined up beneath the drill chuck or by the drill bit skating when trying to drill without first center punching.
 
Structural theory would, therefore, indicate that these micro drill presses could be blind alley.  While an x-y table can allow proper alignment of the drill bit with the work piece, the mechanical advantage of the lever actuated quill does not give one the sensitive feel needed when using tiny bits.
 
While I realize that many do not want to Spend 1000++ for a Sherline mill and accessories, a better option might be one of the full sized house brand drill presses now sold by home improvement stores, and fitted with an x-y table and separate sensitive drilling attachment.
 
Roger

I'd be interested in what you come with as well for a vise and X-Y axis.
 
Question would a little machine shop or other small x-y table work?  Just throwing out ideas.
 
 
X-Y Table Assembly This small precision X-Y table can be used on a drill press or other machine to precisely locate your workpiece. The table is 90 mm (3.54") by 200 mm (7.87"). It has three 8 mm T-slots. The complete X-Y Table assembly is 10.5" wide, 9" deep and 2.9" high. The X-axis travel is 135 mm (5.31") and the Y-axis travel is 70 mm (2.76"). The height of the table is 60 mm (2.36"). The base is 100 mm (3.94") by 175 mm (6.89"). The dials are graduated in 0.001" and one turn of the hand wheels moves the table 0.050". The X-Y table is made of cast iron and steel. There are adjustable gibs on both axes. $189.95

I was in the shop Friday afternoon and I wanted to build some sort of storage for my dremel drill press bits, cutters, wrenches, etc.
 
i seen somewhere that a person built a cabinet with drawers for his lathe.  I liked the idea put my twist on it and here’s what I came up with.  Yeah the drawer pull is over kill but it’s what I had on hand in the shop.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

From McCaffery's miniature models I've seen "in person" in a museum and his book, I believe he uses very fine twisted wire for his standing and running rigging on his famous miniature models rather than fiber rope and you'd have to use a magnifying glass to tell the difference between his wire rigging and any fiber rigging. His book really doesn't do justice to the amazing detail at incredibly small size that he is able to accomplish with his miniatures. It's difficult to fully appreciate his accomplishments until you can see them "in the flesh." The difficulty of such fine work (and his aging eyes) may explain why he's apparently abandoned his ultra small-scale ship modeling and seems to have redirected his attention to building highly detailed 1:48 scale ship models, and carving miniature figureheads, merry-go-round horses, and dinosaur skeletons instead, although they are also so amazing as to be almost beyond belief!  He's also built an amazing 1:48 scale model of HMY Royal Caroline that is detailed down to the level of his miniature models, and it is truly breath-taking. He used fine silk rope on that model.
 
One can spend some very enjoyable time reading the website and links provided by his sales gallery from which the photos below were taken. See: Lloyd McCaffery — J. Russell Jinishian Gallery (jrusselljinishiangallery.com)
 
1:48 rigging detail on HMY Royal Caroline: